AmankwaaL. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121–127.
2.
AshworthP. (1996). Presuppose nothing! The suspension of assumptions in phenomenological. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 27(1), 1–25.
3.
BartholomewT. T.JoyE. E.KangE.BrownJ. (2021). A choir or cacophony? Sample sizes and quality of conveying participants’ voices in phenomenological research. Methodological Innovations, 14(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991211040063
4.
BennerP. (1994a). Introduction. In BennerP. (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness (pp. xiii–xxvii). Sage.
5.
BennerP. (1994b). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health, illness, and caring practices. In BennerP. (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness (pp. 99–127). Sage.
6.
BergerR. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
BowerK.BurnetteT.LewisD.WrightC.KavanaghK. (2016). I had one job and that was to make milk. Journal of Human Lactation, 33(1), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334416679382
9.
BuetowS. (2019). Apophenia, unconscious bias and reflexivity in nursing qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 89, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.013
10.
BurnsM.PeacockS. (2019). Interpretive phenomenological methodologists in nursing: A critical analysis and comparison. Nursing Inquiry, 26, e12280. https://doi-org.ezp.slu.edu/10.1111/nin.12280
11.
BrykczynskiK. A.BennerP. (2010). The living tradition of interpretive phenomenology. In G.ChanK.BrykczynskiR.MaloneP.Benner, Interpretive phenomenology in health care research (pp. 111–141). Sigma Theta Tau International.
12.
ColaizziP. F. (1973). Reflection and research in psychology: A phenomenological study of learning. Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
13.
ColaizziP. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In ValleR. S.MarkK. (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). Oxford University Press.
14.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/0040-584/2000
15.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
16.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.GiardinaM. D.CannellaG. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
DowlingM. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026
20.
DreyfusH. L. (1994). Preface. In BennerP. (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: The embodiment of caring and ethics (pp. vii–xi). Sage.
21.
DreyfusH. L.WrathallM. A. (Eds.). (2005). A companion to Heidegger. Blackwell Publishing.
22.
EnglanderM.MorleyJ. (2023). Phenomenological psychology and qualitative research. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 22, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-021-09781-8
23.
FinlayL. (2008). A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: Explicating the “phenomenological psychological attitude”. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 39, 1–32.
GiorgiA. (1970). Psychology as a human science: A phenomenologically based approach. Harper & Row.
27.
GiorgiA. (2012). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X63293
28.
GiorgiA. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916297X00103
29.
GiorgiA. P.GiorgiB. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In CamicP. M.RhodesJ. E.YardleyL. (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10595-013
30.
HeideggerM. (1927/1962). Being and time. (StambaughJ., Trans.). State University of New York Press. (Original work published 1927).
31.
HusserlE. (1970). Logical investigations I & II (FindlayJ. N., Trans.). Humanities Press. (Original work published 1900).
32.
JohnsonJ. L.AdkinsD.ChauvinS. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), Article 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
33.
LeonardV. W. (1994). A Heideggerian phenomenological perspective on the concept of person. In BennerP. (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness (pp. 43–63). Sage.
34.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
35.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). The phenomenology of perception (SmithC., Trans.). Humanities Press. (Original work published 1945).
36.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
37.
MorrowR.RodriguezA.KingN. (2015). Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method. The Psychologist, 28(8), 643–644.
38.
MorseJ. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
39.
NowellB.AlbrechtK. (2019). A reviewer’s guide to qualitative rigor. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy052
40.
O’BrienB. C.HarrisI. B.BeckmanT. J.ReedD. A.CookD. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
41.
SadalaM. L. A.AdornoR. d. C. F. (2002). Phenomenology as a method to investigate the experience lived: A perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s thought. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, 282-293. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02071.x
42.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.BurroughsH.JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
43.
ShoreyS.NgE. D. (2022). Examining characteristics of descriptive phenomenological nursing studies: A scoping review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(7), 1968–1979. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15244
44.
ShufutinskyA. (2020). Employing use of self for transparency, rigor, trustworthiness, and credibility in qualitative organizational research methods. Organizational Development Review, 52(1), 50–58.
45.
StahlN. A.KingJ. R. (2020). Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095
46.
SuddickK. M.CrossV.VuoskoskiP.GalvinK. T.StewG. (2020). The work of hermeneutic phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920947600
47.
SundlerA. J.LindbergE.NilssonC.PalmérL. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6, 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275
VázquezR.García DíazA.Jiménez FernándezR.Corral LiriaI. (2023). Exploring tandem breastfeeding motivations via self-determination theory: An interpretative phenomenological study. Journal of Human Lactation, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334423116691
50.
ZahaviD. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge.